The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Red]

My preferred attack would be Lillee, Marshall, McGrath/Ambrose and Warne.

But I think having a bowling attack of Marshall, Hadlee, Imran and Warne is very close to being as good as my preferred one, and I think the difference in batting depth could legitimately win you a match, particularly if your team is able to bat first.

I'd probably select Lillee/Marshall/McGrath or Ambrose & Warne in my ATG team because I think they are the greatest bowlers and should be accorded that status, but I'd prefer the batting depth of Imran/Hadlee/Marshall and Warne in a real match. I think that makes sense...

 

[watson]

The next question is - how many runs would Imran make against an ATG bowling attack given that he faced few bowling attacks of a similar quality to McGrath-Ambrose-Hadlee-Murali (for example)? Would his contribution be significantly greater than Marshall's? Also, if Sobers and co are struggling against McGrath-Ambrose-Hadlee-Murali then I don't think that we could expect too much from either Imran or Marshall. In other words, only an ATG batsman can survive and make significant runs against an ATG bowling attack. From 8 down it's more-or-less cannon fodder no matter what bowlers you put in.

I even doubt the ability of Gilchrist to keep his off-stump for very long should Ambrose target him from around the wicket, such was his well known weakness. If I want a keeper to bat for long periods the I would want Allan Knott at the crease because his averages against Lillee-Thomo (1974-75), and Holding-Roberts (1976) are remarkably good for a non-specialist batsman - but I've just gone off topic there, sorry.

 

[NUFAN]

I don't mind picking the better batsman at 8, at 9 I'm indifferent, but at 10 and 11 I'm picking the better bowler on every occasion.

 

[Red]

I don't mind picking the better batsman at 8, at 9 I'm indifferent, but at 10 and 11 I'm picking the better bowler on every occasion.

I broadly agree, but in this scenario I don't think there's a great deal of difference in bowling ability between

Marshall, Lillee, McGrath and Warne
or
Marshall, Hadlee, Imran and Warne.

But the difference in batting depth is quite pronounced.

 

[Flem274*]

@ NUFAN and co. Nah, the difference in bowling between the ATGs is minimal. This is why we have so many arguments on who the best bowler ever is.

To use an example of a never ending debate that would be resolved very easily, Warne v Murali is actually very easy to split if you factor in batting and fielding. Warne wins every time when you're selecting a team.

When you have two players of roughly the same ability you factor in what else they bring to the side. This happens in cricket all the time and it would happen when selecting a team to take on the Martians.

 

[NUFAN]

I broadly agree, but in this scenario I don't think there's a great deal of difference in bowling ability between

Marshall, Lillee, McGrath and Warne
or
Marshall, Hadlee, Imran and Warne.

But the difference in batting depth is quite pronounced.

That doesn't fit my criteria though because Imran would be batting at 8. Pick two bowlers in both teams at 8 and 9 and then give me two alternatives for 10 and 11 and I will pick the two bowlers who I think are best every time unless I think they are exactly the same bowling wise.

 

[Flem274*]

ftr this would be my ATG team

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Hammond
Kallis
Sobers
Miller
Gilchrist
Imran
Hadlee
Warne

The most at risk player in there is probably Miller.

Actually yeah I'll bring in Marshall for Miller.

 

[kyear2]

The only position for bowlers that batting should make a difference is possibly the #8 position, beyond that the absolute best bolwers should be selected, unless they are absolutely equal as bolwers and the batting could be used to separate them (Warne vs Murali). So with Imran in the order, no need to say force in a Hadlee over a (for me) superior bolwer like McGrath, Lillee or Ambrose.

 

[Red]

The only position for bowlers that batting should make a difference is possibly the #8 position, beyond that the absolute best bolwers should be selected, unless they are absolutely equal as bolwers and the batting could be used to separate them (Warne vs Murali). So with Imran in the order, no need to say force in a Hadlee over a (for me) superior bolwer like McGrath, Lillee or Ambrose.

I don't really get the logic of not wanting better accomplished batsmen at #9 and #10 when they're pretty much comparable as bowlers. While they might only make 20 runs, if they're in a partnership with Sobers or Gilchrist, that partnership could be worth 80 runs or whatever. Could be the difference between a team being bundled out for 320 or making 500 plus. In the context of wanting to win a game, that's huge.

 

[watson]

@ NUFAN and co. Nah, the difference in bowling between the ATGs is minimal. This is why we have so many arguments on who the best bowler ever is.

To use an example of a never ending debate that would be resolved very easily, Warne v Murali is actually very easy to split if you factor in batting and fielding. Warne wins every time when you're selecting a team.

When you have two players of roughly the same ability you factor in what else they bring to the side. This happens in cricket all the time and it would happen when selecting a team to take on the Martians.

This still doesn't change the fact that I want Lillee-Marshall-Barnes-Warne for my bowling attack. And I'm not going to let a minor philosophical point about how many runs a No.8 should or shouldn't make get in the way of that.

Of course that particular attack may be ****-house in reality, but I happen to like it just the same. I feel the same way about my old Ford, if you get what I mean.

 

[Flem274*]

The only position for bowlers that batting should make a difference is possibly the #8 position, beyond that the absolute best bolwers should be selected, unless they are absolutely equal as bolwers and the batting could be used to separate them (Warne vs Murali). So with Imran in the order, no need to say force in a Hadlee over a (for me) superior bolwer like McGrath, Lillee or Ambrose.

You're kidding yourself if you think whatever minimal difference there may be between the top ten to twenty best ever bowlers cancels out the gulf in batting ability between a few top bowlers and the rest.

Enjoy losing your last four wickets for diddly squat.

This still doesn't change the fact that I want Lillee-Marshall-Barnes-Warne for my bowling attack. And I'm not going to let a minor philosophical point about how many runs a No.8 should or shouldn't make get in the way of that.

Of course that particular attack may be ****-house in reality, but I happen to like it just the same. I feel the same way about my old Ford, if you get what I mean.

That's cool and I get that, but we weren't discussing you favourite players eleven, we're discussing the best possible eleven ever.

 

[kyear2]

For mine, Marshall and McGrath are the best two bowlers to play the game, I want them sharing the new ball for my team. To boot, Marshall, Warne and Imran were pretty good with the bat and quite frankly good enough not to be bowled out for diddly squat.

 

[Coronis]

Well, then the best combo is probably Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Warne. Wasim or Davidson could be in for some variety, both were very good bats as well.

 

[watson]

In all pitch and weather conditions I believe Lillee-Marshall-Barnes-Warne to be the best bowling combination in the history of cricket. It just so happens that they are also among my favourite bowlers of all time as well. So you put the two things together (best + favourite) and the 'Imran must bat at No.8 because he would score a few more runs than Marshall' argument, while being a good one, is still not compelling enough to dismantle such a great attack (in my view).

But I can still can understand why many consider Imran and Lillee/Barnes as interchangeable strike-bowlers, and therefore justify Imran on the basis of having an extra 'feather in his cap'.

 

[Gowza]

Well, then the best combo is probably Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Warne. Wasim or Davidson could be in for some variety, both were very good bats as well.

procter for hadlee would make it better but obviously his lack of test match cricket is understandably an issue for most.

 

[smash84]

You're kidding yourself if you think whatever minimal difference there may be between the top ten to twenty best ever bowlers cancels out the gulf in batting ability between a few top bowlers and the rest.

.

precisely

 

[NUFAN]

Look Pidge and Curtly, I think you guys are great, I really do, in fact I rate you the second and third best bowlers of all time narrowly ahead of a few others. BUT.. Even though we have Bradman and we've gone for the extra batting in Gilchrist, I really think its important that our number 10 and number 11 can make some more runs because I know if we don't make enough runs from Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, etc our number 10 and 11 will save us!


FTR, I don't believe McGrath and Ambrose are number 2 and 3 - but I think the above situation shows that you can't just think about batting when deciding on the eleven, there comes a time when picking the best bowlers is actually going to be very useful.

 

[NUFAN]

procter for hadlee would make it better but obviously his lack of test match cricket is understandably an issue for most.

Procter to be added for batting in an ATG Test team? The guy has as many Test half centuries as an inanimate carbon rod.

 

[smash84]

Look Pidge and Curtly, I think you guys are great, I really do, in fact I rate you the second and third best bowlers of all time VERY VERY narrowly ahead of a few others. BUT.. Even though we have Bradman and we've gone for the extra batting in Gilchrist, I really think its important that our number 10 and number 11 can make some more runs because I know if we don't make enough runs from Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, etc our number 10 and 11 will save us!

.

Fixed

 

[Gowza]

Procter to be added for batting in an ATG Test team? The guy has as many Test half centuries as an inanimate carbon rod.

how many genuine fast bowlers have a test bowling average of 15, strike rate 37 and a batting average of 25? as said understandably he's left out by many but he could clearly bat very well, and was a very very good bowler.